Longjam Shanti Singh vs The Statement of Manipur

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, C.J.—The petitioner, who is the father of late Longjam Uttamkumar Singh, has filed this writ application for payment of compensation on the allegation that his son was killed by the State Police officials in a fake encounter.

The brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner, late Uttamkumar Singh, after completing his diploma in Civil Engineering started working in different private establishments for earning his livelihood and to support his poor parents. He was working as Sales Executive in "G.N.I. MODI XEROX" a private firm till his death. He was earning about 8000 rupees per month as salary. The deceased was also married and had a school going girl at the time of his death. On 29.3.08 the deceased had gone to his office as usual. The day being a Saturday, the office was closed at 1.30 p.m. and the deceased came back home in a scooter at about 2 P.M. At about 3:20 PM the deceased left his house alone in the said Scooter to purchase some vegetables but came back 10 minutes thereafter. He drove the Scooter upto the courtyard of his residence and saw one unknown person in civil dress following him from the gate. When the deceased was trying to put the Scooter on its stand, he saw the said unknown person pulling out his Pistol. Thereafter the said unknown person fired from a very close range without any warning. Deceased was hit by the bullet and shouted as to why he was being shot at. Ignoring the deceased, the said person continued to fire another 2/3 rounds. When the deceased realized that an attempt is being made to kill him, he ran for a shelter towards a room of his uncle through a narrow strip of land between the houses. The said unknown person also ran after him. When the deceased fell down in the lane, the said unknown person fired another 2/3 rounds at the deceased who was lying in a pool of blood and resting his head on the floor facing towards north. When the deceased became motionless, the said unknown person took out another small Pistol from beneath his shirt and fired 2/3 rounds in the air and put the said Pistol near the right hand of the deceased. In the meantime another person, in civil dress, appeared in the courtyard and took out a small firearm (Pistol) and started firing in the air in order to scare away the family members of the deceased. After killing the deceased, both the persons called somebody on the Cell phone. They also threatened the family members of the deceased to stay inside the house by pointing gun at them. Few minutes thereafter, some other unknown persons in civil dress came and started talking to someone over the Cell phone and few minutes thereafter, uniformed police commandos arrived at the spot including the Officer in-charge of the Imphal Police Station. Thereafter, the gunman, in civil dress, who had killed the deceased, left the scene. The Officer in-Charge of the Imphal Police Station and other personnel prevented everyone from coming out of the houses, took away one Mobile Hand set and Scooter used by the deceased. On these allegations, this writ petition has been filed claiming compensation.

The respondents took a stand that on 29.3.2008 at about 4:30 p.m. a written report was lodged before the Officer in-Charge of Imphal Police Station by one Mr. James Thangal, S.I. of CDO Imphal West. It was alleged in the said report that at about 3 P.M. on that day reliable information was received to the effect that some armed cadre were loitering in and around Keishamthong area. Further information was that the said armed cadre, who were using One NV Scooter and were likely to commit some illegal activities in and around the said area. On receipt of such information, the Commando team rushed to the area and spread out in different directions. Suddenly one person, riding a dark blue Scooter (NV) was seen coming out of Longjam Leirak which connects Nambulmapal main road. The commandos asked him to stop but instead of stopping the vehicle, the rider took a U-turn and sped away. The said rider of the Scooter tried to enter into a small by-lane. When the commando team chased the said person and again shouted to stop, the rider of the said Scooter got down from the Scooter and opened fire towards the commandos from a small arm and started running towards the back side of nearby house. The commando team subsequently retaliated and in course of exchange of fire, the said person was shot dead on the spot. One Revolver loaded with 2 live rounds, 2 empty cases, one Nokia Handset and a sum of Rs. 1,50,280/- along with the scooter were recovered from the possession of the deceased.

Considering the case of the petitioner as well as the stand taken by the respondents, this Court directed the learned District Judge, Manipur East to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The learned District Judge, in compliance of the said order, has submitted his report dt. 4.7.2012 to this Court. The relevant portion of the report, in paragraph 17, is quoted below:

"17. In the result, I have decided that the son of the petitioner, Longjam Uttamkumar Singh was killed in cold blooded manner by the personnel of Manipur Police Commando, Imphal West on 29.03.2008 at about 3:30 p.m. at Keishamthong Longjam Leirak and not from the exchange of firing or encounter between the son of the petitioner and personnel of Manipur Police Commandos, Imphal West."

As is evident from the said report, there was no exchange of fire between the deceased and the commandos and the deceased was killed in a cold blooded manner by the commandos.

Though no objection has been filed to the said report by the respondents, Shri RS Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that the deceased was an active member of a banned organization known as ''PREPAK''. According to the learned Sr. Government Advocate the deceased was involved in criminal activities while working for the said organization and immediately after his death, almost about Rs. 1,50,000/- rupees were recovered in cash. No explanation has been given by the petitioner as to from which source the deceased had obtained the said cash. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that the deceased being a member of a banned organization was collecting money for the organization, should have been accepted by the learned District Judge. It was further submitted that arms and ammunitions having been found from the possession of the deceased, the learned District Judge should have also come to the conclusion that there was an encounter between the deceased and the commandos.

It is the case of Shri Kh. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence to prove the allegation of the respondents that the deceased was a member of ''PREPAK'', a banned organization. It was also contended by Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner that on consideration of the evidence adduced in course of enquiry, the learned District Judge having come to a conclusion that there was no encounter, the same should be accepted and compensation should be allowed.

The learned District Judge, in compliance of the order of the Court, has submitted a long report and we have carefully perused the report. It appears that in course of enquiry, 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and several documents were also produced. The respondents also examined 6 witnesses and produced some documents. Though there is some dispute with regard to signature appearing in the deposition of PW/1 so far as the examination in-chief in the form of affidavit is concerned, we find that PW/2 is the elder brother of the petitioner. He has deposed that on 29.3.2008 at about 3.30 P.M. while he was having Tiffin in his kitchen, he heard 2/3 gun shots. Hearing the gun-shots when he stepped out from his house, he saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the narrow strip of land and also saw another person in civil dress with a small gun standing 9-10'' away from the deceased. When the gunman saw him, he pointed the gun towards him and threatened him not to move. Thereafter the gunman rushed towards the deceased, fired 2/3 rounds from the said gun to the deceased. Thereafter, the gunman took out another fire am from beneath his shirt and fired 2/3 rounds from the said Pistol in the air. Thereafter, the said Pistol was kept near the right hand of the deceased. His evidence has been corroborated by the other witnesses. The Post Mortem Report also shows external and internal injuries caused by fire arm. So far as the stand taken by the respondents with regard to encounter is concerned, we find that the evidence is inconsistent. It was the stand of the respondents that when the deceased was asked to stop, he started firing from his Pistol, thereafter the commandos fired at him. The evidence, in this regard, is inconsistent and therefore the learned District Judge was justified in not accepting or acting upon such inconsistent evidence. On the other hand, the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner is consistent to the effect that even after the deceased fell down, he was shot at twice and thereafter a Pistol was kept near his right hand. This evidence clearly shows that there was no encounter between the deceased and the commandos. Therefore, we find no justification to ignore the report submitted by the District Judge.

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it was contended by Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was an earning member and was only 34 years of age. Considering the age of the petitioner and his earning at the time of death, compensation of Rs. 20 lacs should be allowed. We find from the evidence that the deceased was 34 years of age but there is no evidence with regard to his actual income at the time of death. However, considering the fact that he was married and was maintaining his family, we are of the view that compensation of rupees five lakhs will be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay compensation of rupees five lakhs to the petitioner within a period of 4(four) months from the date of communication of the order.